On 23/03/2011 08:23, fantasai wrote:
> On 03/22/2011 12:53 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>> On 22/03/2011 20:19, fantasai wrote:
>>> On 03/21/2011 01:32 AM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>>>> The subsequent URI, Testcases, Resolution and Status should be filed
>>>> as a new Issue, whose summary should be "Problems with
>>>> the second clearance calculation" or similar
>>
>>> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-285
>>
>>> we do not have enough time to evaluate web compat and make an
>>> appropriate decision.
>>
>> OK (although I note that the second calculation was only introduced in
>> 2007 when it was believed that the spec was pretty much
>> finished, so there must have been more willingness to take the risk at
>> that time).
>
> (But it wasn't anywhere close to PR because we didn't have a test suite.)
A fair point.
>> If the second calculation is to be made optional, please can the
>> following requests be considered:
>>
>> (a) David's post [1] be listed as a URL for Issue 285, since it
>> succinctly describes what the problem is.
>>
>> (b) The Resolution to Issue 285 be edited to remove reference to Acid2
>> and introduce the reasoning that fantasai gives above.
>>
>> (c) The resolution be changed from permitting "calculation of
>> hypothetical position with respect to the parent block" to
>> permitting the second calculation to be omitted. It would be a
>> significant editorial failure to not make it clear that the
>> choice of positioning reference is exactly equivalent to the choice of
>> whether to perform the second calculation; we're
>> starting to make real progress in clarifying this part of the spec,
>> and so it would be a shame to take a step backwards.
>
> Done.
> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-285
>
> Since we don't have any proposed text yet, just a resolution,
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1. Remove "within its parent block".
> 2. Add after the 2-item list:
> "Alternatively, clearance is set exactly to the amount necessary to
> place the border edge of the block even with the bottom outer edge
> of the lowest float that is to be cleared."
> 3. Add a note:
> "Note: Both behaviors are allowed pending evaluation of their compatibility
> with existing Web content. A future CSS specification will require either
> one or the other."
>
> If I understand correctly, this will implement the given resolution.
> Please correct
> me if I am wrong. :)
This seems to be exactly what we want! And, in general, I think the WG
shouldn't shy away from making notes such as this.
Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net